User talk:Gares Redstorm/Archive4
Hi If you could take a peek at User:Bexor/Collectors and leave any feedback on the discussion page there, I would appreciate it. :) - [[User:Bexor|'BeXoR']] 07:03, 22 December 2006 (CST) Ensign Lumi Check out this thread on GWG. Gaile commenting on the wiki, so I asked her about your elusive Ensign Lumi. --Rainith 01:20, 23 December 2006 (CST) :Much appreciated, though it seems she only came on for the fact to set the record straight regarding Nightbringer. I added a little more in hopes she sees and asks about it. I hope she does, I'm too much of a perfectionist when it comes to PvE content. ;) — Gares 14:06, 23 December 2006 (CST) Your playlist. Nightwish. ;) Also, I and my girlfriend loooooove "Mad World". — 130.58 (talk) 02:06, 25 December 2006 (CST) Improvement drive Hi. Would you like to view and comment Talk:Main Page/editcopy#Improvement drive. Thank you in advance! Btw, you might want to archive this talk page. ;) -- (talk) 21:56, 27 December 2006 (CST) Oops Sorry, didn't realise you were already resizing images (I accidentally overwrote your Image:Gray Giant.jpg - you got to it two minutes before me). I'll let you work on them and keep out of your way. :-) --- Barek (talk • ) - 10:50, 28 December 2006 (CST) Voting I'm not sure if I'm allowed ask you anything but would you tell me when is an untested build ready for voting?--Tankfan90 09:41, 29 December 2006 (CST) GW:1RV Got a double-reverter going on here. They think they have the right to revoke a "tested" status based soley on their vote vs. the majority and reverted the status twice. I'm putting up a ban notice as it is a bannable offense. — Jyro X 15:19, 29 December 2006 (CST) :I left messages for the user. The user now appears to be following site policies now that he's aware of them, so I've removed the ban request for now. --- Barek (talk • ) - 15:51, 29 December 2006 (CST) Want to help me? Doesn't that sound inviting? User:Bexor/Armor Project if you have some time and have any opinions on armor style and formatting. - [[User:Bexor|'BeXoR']] 11:57, 2 January 2007 (CST) Project:Monk skills project please delete while some may be hesitant of delting this, look at the content ;) "Fuck off" written by an anon is hardly a monk skiills project. IN fgact, I would think monks would say the opposite. Please delete :) — Blastedt — 15:09, 9 January 2007 (CST) :Thanks — Blastedt — 15:13, 9 January 2007 (CST) ::Np, I was already in delete mode with all the armor pics. ;) — Gares 15:35, 9 January 2007 (CST) Oh fine I'll rephrase that. You have to admit though, saying necromancers with 12 soul reaping in PvE have energy management issues is.. ahm... not very correct? :) I shouldn't scream at people, but come on, that's such an incredibly ahm.. apparent point. That ahm... most... people who play often.. know. :)NightAngel 19:03, 9 January 2007 (CST) :Hehe. I will say in response to your statement above that necros with 12+ sr usually wouldn't have an erg problem under most conditions in PvE. That's not a response to the build in question though as it's better I keep netural regarding the builds section. It's too emotional for my taste ;) I'll stick with facts and figures. — Gares 19:36, 9 January 2007 (CST) >_> *guilty* - [[User:Bexor|'BeXoR']] 19:48, 9 January 2007 (CST) :What happened? — Gares 21:57, 9 January 2007 (CST) :Oh...Micha told me. Yep, I've got my figure on the ban button ;) — Gares 22:12, 9 January 2007 (CST) ::When I del tag old images, even after I replace them on other pages, if they are included into an article the list doesn't update properly and I keep missing places. Is there any way to make that list update or does it just take a while? - [[User:Bexor|'BeXoR']] 13:02, 10 January 2007 (CST) :::If your talking about the links, clear your browser cache. hold SHIFT and press REFRESH. — Gares 13:34, 10 January 2007 (CST) ::::I already force reload, but haven't tried clearing my cache. It doesn't to me, seem like something my computer is causing. It's like any image on a module page that gets included into another article remains in that article when the wiki gets asked about it. It takes a few hours for those links to be removed from the list. I'll try what you said anyway. - [[User:Bexor|'BeXoR']] 13:49, 10 January 2007 (CST) Blocking of User:Noobtoucher I heartily disagree with the ban you have placed on this contributer. With a mere two contributions, why would you block this person for '(removal of deletion tag for no reason).' The reasoning was stated in the article's talk page, and the opinions of several people on both sides differ on whether it should be merged/deleted. If such is open for debate, why should a delete tag be left on said article? - Greven 04:19, 12 January 2007 (CST) :Aren't delete tags supposed to be left untill the discussion is over, so that people notice that the article is on the brink of destruction? However, I also oppose this ban. -- (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2007 (CST) ::Since 3 one-shot registered users came on one after another and defended the build Build:W/any Dragon Spammer, as well as three of them removing the deletion tag, including User:69.153.236.9, I took action. After I banned User:69.153.236.9, no other contributions from any of these users commenting on the build continued and the deletion tag was not removed again without any reason, which leads me to suspect it was one person creating registering multiple accounts to comment and they slipped up using their IP to remove the delete tag the final time. It's happened before, so it is not unlikely it would not happen again. ::I wonder why the block of one new user is any different from the block of the User:69.153.236.9 or User:Twins2 I also did one after the other. If you look at the history, both User:55monk and User:Noobtoucher defended the deletion of the build before the build was even marked for deletion and when the delete tag was placed, User:55monk created the build article again, but in the mainspace instead of the buildspace. ::There were 4 one-shot registered users that praised this build in around an hour. I gave them the option of voting, none of the ones I did not ban felt their vote was needed, they must not feel that strongly about the build or my theory of the IP I banned was the same one being used by all these users was correct. In any case, the ban will be lifted on all involved in 3 days. If all one-shot registered users return at time, including those not banned, then more than the removal of a delete tag will be in question. — Gares 07:51, 12 January 2007 (CST) :::Removing delete tags in this situation is not defensible. It does look likely that they are all the same person. Personally I would have reverted and posted on each users talk page; it's only fair to give these users the benefit of the doubt. If they did not respect the revert then I would have carried out a ban, and a 3 day ban is not unreasonable. :::Overall I would have waited before blocking, but unless I'm missing something I don't think Gares has done anything terribly wrong here. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 08:33, 12 January 2007 (CST) Don't forget.. to substitute :) — Skuld 12:15, 12 January 2007 (CST) :Chalk that one up to trying to edit while working. Ugh... — Gares 13:28, 12 January 2007 (CST) Problem User I remember that you called me on changing something more than once by accident, so I figured I should come to you when someone is doing it on purpose. There is an untested paragon build that was created with the name "Speedchucker" because it is basicly a paragon that throws spears as fast as possible. But the user by the name of Rapta has changed it multiple times to the name "Spear Paragon". When I was looking for the speedchucker build I couldn't believe that someone would change the name that the creator had given it to such an undescriptive name. I won't change the build name myself, but I hope you at least give Rapta a warning and change it back, or let the original creator change it back. Thanks.-- Kirbman 10:40, 13 January 2007 (CST) PS. I would link to the build but because it keeps moving I don't know where to link to. It should be easy to find seeing that there aren't too many untested paragon builds. :You did well to not follow in the others' footsteps regarding the beaking of policy. It has been taken care of to the best of my ability. Thanks for informing an admin on this issue. — Gares 12:12, 13 January 2007 (CST) ::I think the issue that some may have with the name of this build is that the name is rather close to the derogatory term "spearchucker." --Rainith 21:30, 13 January 2007 (CST) :::I'm sure you've seen the build talk page in question. There were actually only two users that agreed to change the name, neither of which was because it closely resembled a derogatory term. One user for the reason of "No original names...Simply proper naming procedure" for which was disupted, as there have always been original names and no policy for naming conventions and the other user just agreed with no reason. As to the word "spearchucker", I have never heard it ever used in a abusive manner. You chuck(throw) a spear, i.e. paragon. — Gares 22:31, 13 January 2007 (CST) ::::Actually I didn't read the page, I just know I thought the page might cause a problem when I saw the name originally. See the Urban Dictionary def for why I thought it might cause a problem. --Rainith 22:48, 13 January 2007 (CST) Objection on voting - wrong information stated I have seen Rapta is putting totally incorrect reasons for Unfavored in most of my builds. This style leads to a problem - other people can easily misjudge the build if the have not tested it because they really think Rapta is right. So all following votes are more-less based on false vote. like in this build: Build_talk:N/A_Dark_Vampire. Here is the most obvious example: Build_talk:D/R_Strengthened_Rampager Once you read this, you will see my point. Take a look at changes from my previous version. Or test the build yourself (both versions). Can you take some action about this, this is really annoying, it would be much better if he had posted just (-) (none) and his signature or at least something like "I think ..., I suppose"? Thanks in advance, LeDeni 14:48, 13 January 2007 (CST) :Unfortunately, any user can vote for any reason or none at all, can vote without even testing the build, and does not even have to have any knowledge what-so-ever with builds, skill synergy, attribute placement, etc. And I'll hold my tongue on that sentence. There is no administrative action that can be done in this situation. I'm sorry. — Gares 16:26, 13 January 2007 (CST) And take a look here: Build_talk:N/A_Dark_Vampire at unfavored #7. LeDeni 18:03, 14 January 2007 (CST) :Someone already posted at User talk:Falling Fai requesting the user to verify where they meant the vote to be placed. --- Barek (talk • ) - 18:15, 14 January 2007 (CST) Skwog! User:skwog is being a irresponsible jerk again i request once again that he be banned, i tried to help with the orginization of his page and he snapped at me and made a huge deal over it.[[User:asmodius|'Asmodius']] 20:08, 14 January 2007 (CST) :Maybe leave people's userpages alone? Maybe he liked the white background? Maybe he has a right to be mad? — Blastedt — 20:10, 14 January 2007 (CST) ::sigh ... ::Oddly, you each (Skwog and Asmodius) each have the other listed as a friend on your respective user pages. ::Provided a user isn't disrupting the wiki with the contents of their userpage, they have a great deal of freedom to set it up however they choose. There are limits of course; but for the most part, they have the right to set it up as they want it. If you changed someone else's user page, and they didn't appreciate the change, they have a right to complain to you about it. Just leave it and move on. --- Barek (talk • ) - 20:18, 14 January 2007 (CST) :Why do you bother administrators with this random crap? — 130.58 (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2007 (CST) :::::well...maybee u use the word maybee way toomuch and, maybee he maybee wanted me to maybee help him make his userpage look better maybee...[[User:asmodius|'Asmodius']] 10:02, 15 January 2007 (CST) ::::::Behave yourself. — Gares 10:37, 15 January 2007 (CST) Categories I want to learn about categories. I'm asking you because you corrected my mistake recently on Sulee. (Sorry btw.) I added a category for Bone Palace on Palmod and it's a red link. Where do I look for location categories? Is this link wrong or should I create it? --''Glynnis'' 14:20, 17 January 2007 (CST) :The category is correctly named by the location, so feel free to create a description for he category like the others have. The reason why it is empty is that none of the other NPCs ave been added to the category yet. -- (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2007 (CST) ::No worries about that that. The reason for no Category:Blacktide Den is because the place, Blacktide Den, was separated into Category:Blacktide Den (location) and Category:Blacktide Den (mission). When a name is more than one area, for instance the outpost Blacktide Den is different than the mission Blacktide Den, the categories are separated. As far as the Bone Palace is concerned, it is only used as a location. It isn't a mission or an explorable area, so as Gem said the name Category:Bone Palace will suffice. — Gares 15:33, 17 January 2007 (CST) :::Thanks for the explanations! :) I created Category:Bone Palace. I hope I did it correctly. --''Glynnis'' 15:37, 17 January 2007 (CST) ::::You did good for your first real category ;) — Gares 15:40, 17 January 2007 (CST) Bad votes Hi, I'm complaining about some bad votes. The negative votes on my build Build:E/any AoE Damage Earth ele were made with poor comparisons and in one case with absolutely no reason. 2 of the voters claimed that SS Warders are superior. Problem is, it's like comparing a car to a gun, they both have completely different reasons for existing. And I have also just found out they have put up an unfavoured tag for very incorrect reasons. Please could you sort this out. Thanks in advance. Napalm Flame 12:03, 18 January 2007 (CST) :From what I can see, they did follow Project:Build vetting procedure. The site's procedures have several known problems; but it's what we're stuck with using. And, they have followed the technical requirements of that procedure. :I didn't read through the talk page to compare the reasons given in the unfavored tag; but, none of those reasons were given in the actual votes, so those reasons could possible be changed to "see talk page", or removed (leave the unfavored tag, but remove the reasons in it - then discuss on that talk page to explain why making the change to the tag though - the community may choose to keep them, but that's up to the community to discuss). --- Barek (talk • ) - 12:11, 18 January 2007 (CST) ::Okay, I won't change the unfavoured votes without your permission, so I am asking for it now. If you say I can, I will change it. ::As for the unfavoured tag, is it possible for me to call for a proper, serious vote sometime in the future and remove the previous discussions? Thanks in advance again. Napalm Flame 14:05, 18 January 2007 (CST) :::The current build voting policy is crap, but according to it no one needs to test the build to vote and they don't even need to explain their vote. And they can explain the vote and they might be totally wrong, but no one else is allowed to modify their votes or remove them. -- (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2007 (CST) ::::So could I (a person who has nothing to do with the Builds section, never tests any or even reads the page) go over to ever build currently being voted on and vote whatever I wanted? - [[User:Bexor|'BeXoR']] 08:43, 19 January 2007 (CST) :::::A person that doesn't even play guild wars or even heard of the game but has found this site can vote on any build in anyway they want. — Gares 08:45, 19 January 2007 (CST) ::::::Aint it a stupid policy? Now do you see why we need a new policy? I thought so. go and take part in the discussion, we need new and working policy. -- (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2007 (CST) :::::::In my opinion the builds section doesn't belong on the wiki at all. - [[User:Bexor|'BeXoR']] 08:56, 19 January 2007 (CST) ::::::::Project:Post No Builds — Gares 08:57, 19 January 2007 (CST) :::::::::Wow, seems quite... drastic =O Oh well, seems like a good change. ...Did I spark all this off? =S I wreck things wherever I seem to go... I'll just... *walks* —''The preceding unsigned comment was added by'' Napalm Flame (talk • ) 11:03, January 19, 2007 (CST). ::::::::::You didn't trigger any of this. It's a point of frustration for many that revisions of the builds procedures haven't been able to make progress. They keep getting bogged down with endless debates. The "Post no builds" proposal linked above has been out for a while - along with a half dozen or so other build procedure change proposals. --- Barek (talk • ) - 11:49, 19 January 2007 (CST) ::::: If you were making a nuisance of yourself by doing so, a ban for disruption would find its way to ya :p — Skuld 10:32, 19 January 2007 (CST) S&F edit Something strange is going on with that S&F page (Project:Style and formatting/Items) as I tried to edit a section and it cleared out everything after that section when I saved it. I don't think the anon meant to do that blanking so I'm going to unblock him. --Rainith 00:22, 20 January 2007 (CST) :Breaking something on the wiki again, huh? :P — Gares 00:25, 20 January 2007 (CST) ::Eh, I do what I can. :P Try it, edit one of the sub-sections on that page and see if it happens to you. --Rainith 00:27, 20 January 2007 (CST) :::My edits were solid, but apparently in the diff & hist, I re-added part of the syntax twice and it looks like I blanked it the first time. Everything is still there. Whatever the bug is, it's isolated to the Items S&F so far from what I've seen. — Gares 00:37, 20 January 2007 (CST) ::::I had a problem with the armor one where a template was adding in over and over. I think it's because someone forgot a nowiki tag. Boy it was annoying! - [[User:Bexor|'BeXoR']] 03:49, 20 January 2007 (CST)